JETS 50/2 (June 2007) 259–73 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THEOLOGICALLY CONSTRUCTED COVENANTS jeffrey j. niehaus* During the last hundred years a historically unique way of doing covenant theology has developed. That way understands and works with the biblical covenants between God and people. But it goes beyond those covenants, which the Bible identifies as such, and postulates larger covenant enti- ties: overarching covenants that assimilate the biblical covenants. John H. Walton, himself a practitioner of this approach, distinguishes the operative concepts of covenant as follows: “Covenants may be identified as ‘biblical’ covenants, articulated as covenant in the Bible, or ‘theological’ covenants constructed by theologians, often composites of several biblical covenants.”1 A concept that often goes hand in hand with such an approach is that of the “unity of the covenants.” Those who understand the biblical covenants within the framework of an overarching, theologically constructed covenant gen- erally do so with a desire to be able to maintain the unity of the covenants. Laudable as that desire may be, however, it has produced a way of dealing with covenants, and with the Bible as a whole, that contributes more con- fusion than clarity. The reason for that lies in the concept of a “theologically constructed covenant.” I hope in this paper to show the inadequacy of that concept and to propose a better alternative. A survey and critique of some major theologically constructed covenants is in order before an alternative is presented. i. survey and critique There are three major variations on the theological construct approach, and each may be represented by a practitioner. One theologically constructed covenant of some standing (and long standing) among covenant theologians has been the “Covenant of Grace.”2 I will discuss and critique this covenant with reference to Meredith Kline’s recently published advocacy of it. In addition to the “Covenant of Grace,” two other constructs have recently appeared. One comes from John H. Walton. He has proposed an alternative * Jeffrey Niehaus is professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 130 Essex Street, South Hamilton, MA 01982. 1 John H. Walton, Covenant (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 61, n. 2. 2 Cf. Edward J. Young, The Study of Old Testament Theology Today (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1959) 84. 260 journal of the evangelical theological society to the “Covenant of Grace” and calls that alternative simply “The Covenant.” The other comes from William Dumbrell. He has produced an unusual assimilation of all divine-human biblical covenants and argues that just one covenant relationship characterizes all of them.3 All of these efforts breathe the same spirit, and all of them have the same problem. 1. The “Covenant of Grace.” Meredith Kline speaks of what is called the “Covenant of Grace” in his Kingdom Prologue. The “Covenant of Grace” is that which “encompasses all the redemptive administrations from the Fall to the Consummation,” hence, all of the covenants from the Noahic to the “new” or “second” covenant (Heb 8:6–8). This overarching covenant is not expressed as such anywhere in Scripture, but is a concept arrived at by “the traditional procedure of covenant theology whereby the individual berith- diatheke transactions of redemptive history are combined into ever more comprehensive ‘covenant’ entities, culminating in what is usually called the Covenant of Grace.”4 Such a concept is desirable because we recognize “that there is a fundamental unity among all the individual covenants” after the fall, and it is therefore appropriate to find an expression that displays or summarizes that unity.5 It would be a good thing to identify biblical precedent for such a unifying procedure if possible. Kline recognizes that possibility and proposes a way of fulfilling it: the process of identifying higher levels of covenantal unity is surely proper, for the biblical authors themselves already did that kind of systematizing of the covenants. For example, in Psalm 105:9,10 (cf. 2 Kgs 13:23; 1 Chr 16:16, 17) there is a virtual identifying of God’s separate covenantal transcations with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the separate covenants enacted by Moses at Sinai and in Moab and the later renewals of this arrangement in Joshua 24 and elsewhere in the Old Testament are repeatedly spoken of by later Old Tes- tament authors and by New Testament authors as one covenant of the Lord with Israel, which the book of Hebrews refers to as the “first” over against the “new” or “second” covenant (Heb 8:6–8). It may be that these covenant renewals provide a precedent or an analogy which justifies an overarching concept like the “Covenant of Grace.” But it is not so without further examination. That is the case because the two examples which Kline cites are precisely covenant renewals. God made a covenant with Abraham, and then renewed it with Isaac and Jacob. God made a covenant with Israel through Moses for one generation (the genera- tion of the wilderness wanderings after Sinai), then renewed it through Moses for another generation (the generation that would conquer Canaan under Joshua); that same covenant was then renewed through Joshua, and so on. The Lord’s procedure in each case was like that of an ancient Near 3 Dumbrelll’s approach is espoused by Scott Hafemann, whose work we will also consider. 4 Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000) 6. 5 Ibid. an argument against theologically constructed covenants 261 Eastern suzerain, who would make a treaty/covenant with a vassal and then renew it with the vassal king’s heir when that heir ascended his father’s throne—in other words, when a new generation became vassal. So there is a chain of covenant renewals from Abraham through Jacob, and another chain of covenant renewals from Moses through Joshua and beyond. But these are renewals of two distinct covenants. So, it is appro- priate to speak of “a virtual identifying of God’s separate covenantal trans- actions with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” because in a sense those are all the same covenant, the original Abrahamic covenant being renewed with each generation. Likewise, “the separate covenants enacted by Moses at Sinai and in Moab and the later renewals of this arrangement in Joshua 24 and elsewhere in the Old Testament” are indeed “repeatedly spoken of by later Old Testament authors and by New Testament authors as one covenant of the Lord with Israel,” because they are: renewals of the Sinaitic covenant made originally through Moses. In the ancient Near East and in the OT, covenant renewals formed part of the original covenantal relationship, because they enshrined the legal continuance of that relationship for subse- quent generations. But that is very different from saying that they provide a basis for an overarching formula, such as the “Covenant of Grace,” which unites different covenants under one aegis. One must face the question, in fact, whether such a thing as a “Covenant of Grace” actually exists (except, that is, in the minds of some theologians). The “Covenant of Grace,” as noted above, is not a concept stated anywhere in Scripture. It is a human construct that attempts to place all of God’s redemptive covenants, from the Noahic to the new, under one umbrella. Now it is true that God has worked through the course of history by a series of covenants, from the Noahic onward, in order to prepare humanity for his final covenant, the new covenant in Christ’s blood. But the fact that God used several covenants as a means of progressive revelation, with the new covenant as a goal, does not mean, ipso facto, that all of those covenants actually constitute one overarching “Covenant of Grace.” We have already seen that the analogy of a covenant renewal process within individual covenants is inadequate to establish such a connection. That is so even though the two examples that Kline cites, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants (with their renewals), are in fact very much connected, and con- nected with the new covenant as well, as we will argue later. So, more work is needed in order to display quite clearly both the nature of each of the post-Adamic covenants and the limitations of their connectedness. We may find that they actually possess important connections, and yet not to the degree that they should be construed into one overarching “Covenant of Grace.” A major problem with the “Covenant of Grace” construct lies with the differences between the major post-Adamic covenants. The Noahic covenant and the Mosaic covenant are good examples. The Noahic covenant, as Kline rightly observes, is a recreation covenant, meant to restore the earth as a livable kingdom, with humanity as viable royalty upon it. The way in which Gen 9:1–3 echoes the stipulations of 262 journal of the evangelical theological society Gen 1:28 makes this clear. In both cases the human royal vassals are to be fruitful, multiply, and rule over the earth (with the added blessing of fear, which facilitates human rule, imposed upon the animals in Gen 9:3). The purpose of this covenant is to reestablish, under common grace, a livable world in which God’s program for the salvation of an elect people can proceed. By its very nature, then, it is quite different from any subsequent covenant which God makes with his chosen people, who (unfortunately) form only a small subset of the human beings who dominate the planet. The difference, again, is between a common grace covenant, a covenant with all humanity (in the person of Noah and his family, from whom all humanity devolve) and with the fallen world itself (Gen 9:10) on the one hand, and a series of special grace covenants with small elect groups (the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants) on the other.